
tilHBfc^iiiiiiiiiiliiilill 



rAPJVi 


































.° j?"^^. 





■/./\.°^ 










% ■^^♦^ : 



a\ ' 'C' ' • • • 



c^^,«. : 





























•» v3 



^ ->. 









S ■ 




»• y^ 








/-m 




• ^ -i . 


0' V, *'*^' 


^..^^" 










. -^^o^ -, 'bv* :-^ 




< '^ - a I iP •^ 























SltiDcrti-— £:i]c Dlblc— -Jnfikllb. 



PRO-SLAVERY 



INTERPETATIOXS OF THE BIBLE, 



PEODUCnVE OF 



INFIDELITY: 



r.V WILLIAM W. PATTON, 

PA*«TOR or TH« FOURTH CONO. CHURCH, HARTFORD, CON«r. 



[SBOOKD EDITIOJf] 



HARTFORD: 
rEDTTED BY WIIXLVM IL BURLEIGH 
1»47. 



The following resolution, passed at the close of a meeting held at 
Guilford, Conn., August 4th, in commemoration of West India Eman- 
cipation, will inform the reader why the following pages are submitted, 
througli the press, to the perusal and careful consideration of the re- 
ligious public. 

"Resolved,— That the thanks of this meeting be rendered to the Rev. 
Mr. Patton, for his able and appropriate discourse this day deUvered 
to us, and believing the same calculated to exert a good influence, if 
put into circulation, we hereby request a copy for pubhcation." 






SLAVE RY--TnE BIBLE— INFIDELITY. 



Thk fJihlp is the Word of God. This is the truth which runs a (^ 
viding line hctvvepn infidels and christians. The infidel assert."* that it 
IS "a cimninply devised nil)Ie." of hninnn origin alone, intended to 
impose upon the credulity of the ignorant mns^.aiid only received by 
Uie intelligent for selfish rea.«ons. The chri.sti;m on the other hand 
coniend.s thai" all scripture is given by in^^iratlon of CJod," and was 
written by "holy men of (Jod. who ppake as they were moved by the 
Holy (ihost," and that ron<eqtieniiy all are bound to believe its doc- 
trines and tu live in accordance with its precepts. 

'ihe evidence in proof of the inspiration of the Bible is of two 
kindu, external and internal. The external evidence embrace? the 
arguiiMMilH derived from iiiirHcles. prophecy, and the succc'?? which has 
attended the iircjpagalioti of Christianity. The internal evidence, to 
Uite liie language of Bishop Home, is derived from " the sublime doc- 
irinen and tlie purity of the moral precepts revealed in the Scrijitures 
— the harmony siib^isiirig lietween every part, — their miraculous pres- 
tfrTation — ami the tendency of the whole to promote the pre-'^ent and 
eternal happiness ol mankind, as evinced by the blessed ellects which 
■ re invariably produced by a cordial reception and belief of the Bible 
— together with thu peculiar ndvanlnges ponse.s.sed by the Christiaa 
revelation overall oilier religions." It may be well to remark here 
that one of the above specifications (to *'it, the miraculous preserva- 
tion of the Scriptures,) would more j)roperly be inrliirled in the exter- 
nal e\iiieiices. .\ more concise delifiiiioii of the internal evidence 
of Christianity is given by the celebrated .Methodist divine, Richard 
WaLson, as " timt which anses from the apparent excellence and 
beiieticinl tendency of the doctrine." 

In what way have intideU attacked Christianity ' They have as- 
sailed It in both the points which have been mentioned, but until of 
late, pniiiipally by denying the existence of tin- mirricles and prophe- 
cies which constitute the main strength (»f the external eMilerice. 
From the days of the S«nlndriin whi> j»rel«tidfd that Christ did not 
rise from the dead, but Ins body was stolen by his disciples, to the 
days of Thomas I'aine. i»reity much «)ne course has been pursued. 
There has been indeed an occasional and feeble attack upon the doc- 
trines an«l precepts of the Bible, lis for instance when Hiimeadempted 
to show that " lluiitililv ought to be struck on'lVom the catalogue of 
virtues and |)laced on the catJilogiie of vices;" but the strength of ar- 
gument and the power of wit and sarcasm on the intidel side, has been 
principally expended in attempts to meet the evidence in favor of 
Christianity drawn from miracles an<l prophecies. I think a refer- 
ence to the works of Celsus, Torplivry, Bolmbroke. Hume, \'oIlair«, 
RouNeau, Ciibbon and Paine, will juttlify tliis asserliou. 



But a new system of tactics has in these modern days been devised, 
and of late, Christianity has been attacked on the side of its internal 
evidence, as though that point, long thought to be impregnable, and 
almost allowed by its enemies to be so, was now discovered to be the 
least capable of defence. Those who have listened to the addres^s 
before infidel conventions, or who have read the current infidel pub- 
lications, are aware that their efforts have been directed in a new 
channel. They have suddenly given their theories a practical turn, 
and have undertaken to reduce infidelity from A mere negation to 
something positive. Mr. Owen, in the infidel convention recently 
held in New York City, urged this point as one of vital moment, that 
infidelity should make some positive affirmations and not content itself 
with a mere denial of Christianity. In connection with this new plan 
of effort, the words love, universal benevolence, human brotherhood, 
equality, &c., are continually upon their lips, and they have actually 
begun to assail the church with the weapon of moral reformation. It 
may sound strangely in the ears of some to hear the battle cry of "Re- 
form," and especially of a IMoral Reform, shouted by the infidel ranks, 
— it may contrast curiously with the lives of their most eminent wri- 
ters ; nevertheless, such a battle cry has been adopted. Yes, infidels 
profess to go for a reformation in morals, and they boldly contend that 
Christianity is the chief obstacle in the way of success. They declare 
that the Church and the Bible are corrupt on the score of morals, 
and that so far from an argument being derived from that quarter in 
favor of Christianity, the very reverse is true. 

Among the subjects which have aiibrded infidels the means of 
making such an attack on the religion of Christ, is Slavery. Within 
the last few years, anti-slavery principles have furnished an armorj 
from which they have drawn some of their deadliest weapons, and by 
whose aid they have done fearful execution. Said one of the most 
prominent infidels in a recent convention offree thinkers in New York, 
"I have done with the old arguments against Christianity, and have, 
adopted a more efficient plan. Now I work altogether through the 
moral reformations of the day, and through them attack religion, and 
find that I can accomplish more than by any other means" Those 
who have hud an opportunity to watch his movements, know that his 
hardest blows are dealt when upon the subject of slavery. 

At first sight, it might appear preposterous, to denounce the Bible 
on the ground that it sanctions slaveholding, when the Old Testament 
contains this explicitcondemoation of it, " He that stealeth a man, and 
aelleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to 
death," and " Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteous- 
ness, and his chambers by wrong ; that useth his neighbors service 
without wages, and giveth him not for his work" ; when also the 
New Testament exhibits such words of rebuke as these " Behold the 
hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of 
you kept back by fraud, crieth; and tlie cries of them who have reap- 
ed are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbaoth.'' " The law is 
not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for 
the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of 
fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers 
for them that defile themselves with mankind, for mcnstmlers, foi liars, 
for perjured persons." A more scathing denunciation of the sin in 
question, is surely to be found on record in no other book. How, 



then, it may be asked, can the infidel have the hardihood to affirm 
that tlie Bible sanctions slaveholding ? The answer may be returned 
without difficulty. The infidel erects his superstructure on* the foun- 
dation which professedly Christian hai^ds have laid. He surveys the 
church, and lo I thousands and tens of thousands of her accredited 
menib»'rs acltialiy hold slaves. Menjbers " in good and regular stand- 
ing," fellowshipped throughout Christendom except by a few anti- 
slavery churches generally despised as ultra and radical, reduce their 
fellow men to the condition of chattels and by force keep them in that 
•tale of degradation. Bishops, Minister*, Elders and Deacons, are 
engaged in this awful business and do not consider their conduct aa 
at all incotisi-.tent with the precejtts, of either the Old or New Testa- 
ments. Mor^'over, those .Ministers and Churches who do not them- 
nclvcs hold slaves, very generally deH-nd the conduct of those who do, 
and accord to them a fuir Christian character, and in the way of busi- 
ness frequently lake mortgages and levy e.xecutiqns on the bodies of 
their fi-llow men, and in some cases of their fellow christians. 

Now is it a wonder, that infidels beholding the practice and listen- 
ingto ihetheory '" - ' • • ' ''risti;ins, should conclude that the Bible 
incukati.-s a ni' t«Mit witlicli:iH»'Ii/.ing huu)an beings? 

And must not ' ctrpngthened. when they hear Min- 

istem of talent and ieurning declare that tlie Bible does sanction slave* 
holding, and lliat it ought not tn \**» mt '»» h Hi-jciplinable olVence in 
churches' .\iid mu-t not all <l I. when one of the 

modt leiirned j)r()fef»s()rs in our i ri»-s. ass«Tts that the 

Bibli- " T'-' •' ' •' • rel.;;, ... ... . K,'i. salva fide et »alva 

eccletiia' • lh<' C'liristirm laiih or church) and that 

only " tli< ••*«»'ntial and fiindninental wrong" ? Are 

not infideU b<Mtud lu Utfluvc that tbfse I'roft mtum. Ministers, autT 
Cln»r^!i«"« nt»«l«T"innd their own Bible, and that conwpqnently, not- 
witii jMMftgen whicfi appear to condemn «Uveliolding, 

'I",,,., ,. ..,.,; uinity furnished for the infidel to nrgnc against 
iLe Bibb'. He ailoptn the \cry argumentji whirh j)roslavery mini»- 
lerii and churrh<'s adduce in ordpr to array the Bible on the side of 
the oppri'-sdr, and ihm appealing to the common sense, the reason, 
the coiiK-ieiirc of iiKMi. he pronounces a i»cnlence of condemnation 
on a book whi' ' ' '• - such morality, or ruther immorality, and 
reliction the \< : i.inily and jii»tiir to hUKi.tin him It is by 

such fii-ourse li. of lliou«ands in Chfi.sti.inity. is being un- 
dermined. It would seem to re<{uirobiit a bare statement of these facts 
to prove the tnith of the position wliich I have undertaken to main- 
tain, to wit. that 

iMinr.i.irv is tiik ctiiTAi.v ri:.*llt ok pkoslavkrv vikws in 

THE ChUKCU. 

For my own part. 1 believe th.it if we admit the premises of the in- 
fidel, we shall be forced to his conclusion — if the Bible s.inctions slave- 
holding, then it cannot be from (Jod — for the argum«'nt from internal 
evidence is not only refuted, but artually turnt'd against the Bible. 
Nor am I alone in this belief: Thousands tremble for Zion as they 
beliold the position into wluch many would «lriv.* or lead the church. 
A writer in one of our ablest periodicals, the Ntw Knglander, (Oct- 
1645) in concluding a review of Gov. Hamiuond'd Letter iu defence 



6 

of slavery, does not hesitate to use this language ; '' We will only say 
to tiiose who think that the Bible sanctions slavery, such as we have 
proved it to be, — Meet the infidel on the question of the internal evi- 
dence of the divinity and truth of the Bible, if you can." 

In stating what I conceive to be the truth on the point submitted, 
I propose to show — 

I. What must in the nature of the case be the result 

OF PROSLAVERY VIEWS IN THE GhURCH. 

II. What have been already the actual results. 

I. I am to show what must in the nature of the case he the result oj 
proslavery views in the Church. As certainly as there is any connec- 
tion between premises and conclusion, that result must be the extension 
of infidelity. Am I asked, why? Because a sanction of slavery by 
the Bible would be fatal to its internal evidence. Is the question still 
urged. In what respect-; is that internal evidence destroyed? I reply, 
In respect to four important points, which 1 will specify. 

1. If the Bible sanctions slaveholding then it misrepresents the 
character of God. We learn much both as to the natural and moral 
attributes of God from the works of nature and the spontaneous af- 
firmations of conscience. These teachers inform us that God is be- 
nevolent, is just, is merciful, is truthful. The Bible itself declares 
that as to these fundamental points, the light of nature atfords the 
means of arriving at the truth. " Because that which may be known 
of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it to them. For 
the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal 
power and Godhead." (Rom. 1 : 39,20.) If then reason infallibly 
teaches the wisdom, benevolence, holiness, justice and mercy of God, 
the Bible in order to be received as from God, must teach the same 
truths and must in every way be consistent with those moral attributes. 
If the Bible is found to teach directly or indirectly that God is malevo- 
lent, or unholy, or unjust, or unmerciful, then no better ground for 
rejecting it is needed. Now it has been contended by Christians that 
the Bible meets this claim in the fullest manner— that it not only does 
not contradict the teachings of reason as to the character of God, but 
more fully affirms and explains them, setting forth the divine charac 
ter in a manner so clear, so pure, so glorious, as has never been ap 
proached by any other system. Thisltirmly believe to be the fact 
but my faith would be staggered as to the strength of this evidence, i 
I also believed that the Bible sanctioned the claim of property in man 
For what is slaveholding but the most flagrant contradiction of benev 
olence, holiness, justice and mercy ? If it be just for one man to ap 
propriate wholly to himself the body, mind, time and earnings of his 
fellowman from infancy to old age, I defy any man to define injustice. 
All that we commonly characterize"" as injustice is the doing some 
one of the things just specified, and shall he who does them all be 
called just? The common sanse of every man rejects the thought, 
and in view of the wide-sweeping usurpation of slaveholding rather 
affirms the expression of John Wesley, that it is "the sum of all vil- 
lainies." But if slaveholding be essentially unjust, unholy, malevo- 
lent and unmerciful, what must be the character of him who as Moral 
Governor approves and sanctions it? Does not the law reveal the 



moral state of the lawgiver, and is it not alway? a transcript of hi? 
character? If then the divine law as laid down in the Bible is per- 
fectly consistent with the conduct of him who asserts and exercises the 
claim of ownership in his fellowm.in. then must the character of God, 
the lawgiver, suffer in the eyes of all who listen to the voice of con- 
science 

Men know that God is just, and that slaveholdin^ is nnjust. The 
infidel dare not deny either fact, and in proof I instance Thomas Jef- 
ferson, who appealed to the very justice of (Jod against this abomina- 
tion. Speaking of slavery and of the liability to an insurrection of 
the slaves, he writes; " I tremble for my country tchcn I rrflrct that 
God tsju^fl: that his justice cannot sleep forever; tliat considering 
numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of 
fortune, — an exchange of situations [between slave and ma-ster] is 
among pos^sible events: that it may become probable by supernatural 
interference ! The Almighty has no attribute which can t;ike Ade 
with UH in Huch a contest." Again he observes; " When the measure 
of liifir [the slaves') tears shall be full — when their leais shall have in- 
volved heaven itself in darkn«'ss — douhfUss a God of juMire tciil 
atcalun to tfuir distrrss, and by diffusing a light and liberality among 
tJieir oppre.Mors. or, at length by his exterminating thunder, manifest 
his attention to thingnofthin world and that they are not left to the 
guidance of bhud fala'ily." (Notes on Virginia). 

These are the wordt of an infidel who^e conscience told him, as 
do«ii the con»CM'nce of nil men. that slavcholding never can be recon- 
ciled with justic*'. ariil ronwequently that (iod can never Hnnriion it. 
Suppose now that a proslavi'ry miniMcr had approarhrd Thnina* 
Jelierson, and eiidrnvorod to prove from the IJible that jilavrhold- 
ing is not inrontuKtent with ilod'n rrquiremenLi, what would have 
been his an^iwcr, and Uiat of every man whose conwrirncc on tluN sub- 
ject has not Iwen perverted and scared f It would have been this. 
" Sir, if your interpretation of the Hibl« he correct, it can- 
not be the Word of God — for it givps him a rbarnrtor the yery reverse 
of thai which reason and conscience affirm." I hesitate not then to 
nay, that ^o far as the internal evidence in favor of the IJible rests on 
itj exhibition of God'.s character, it is all swent away by a proslavery 
interpretation, and a triumph is given to infidelity : for in the contest, 
the infidel will have the common sense and comtcience of the world 
wiili him. 

2. If the Bible canclions slaveholding, then tho argument for it 
inHpiralion derived fr«)m its system of morals, i.s foreNer destroyed. 
When wo argue with infidel.s, we urge the gcneraliv admitted 
fact, ihat the correct, thejiurc. the benevolent, the beautifiil nystemof 
morals inculcated in the Bible, evinces its divine origin. We point to 
the vain alluuip'.s of ancient philosophers to devise a code of moral 
jaw which bbi uld suffice to regulate human conduct, and should com- 
mend Itself to every tJioughtlul and candid mind. We quol^ «.mo 
maxims of justice and love, so universal in their application, which 
are coulained in the New Testament, and with them contrast the 
•elfishness, injustice and malevolence which inhere in all systems 
but the Christian. We ask, How comes it that only the Bible should 
s«l forth a perfect systeui— a sy-lein which promotes universal love 
and happiuess, unless we admit that God was its author? This ar 



. 8 

gument so briefly described, bears with irresistibla power against the 
positions of infideHty, so long as the main fact with regard to the 
Christian system of morals, is allowed to be true. Hence the infidel 
Rousseau was compelled to use this language; "Where could Jesus 
learn among his competitors, that pure and sublime morality, of which 
he only hath given us both precept and example ?" Even the scur- 
rilous Tom Paine amid all his abuse of the Bible, remarks of Christ ; 
" He was a virtuous and amiable man. The morality that he preach- 
ed and practised was of the most benevolent kind." But the force of 
this argument is lost on the man who denies the fret which we urge, 
who declares that the Christian religion so far from inculcating morals 
which commend themselves to every man's conscience, lends its sanc- 
tion to that which outrages every decision of our uncorrupted moral 
sense. This latter is the position of modern infidelity. Once skeptics 
endeavored to account for the pure morality of scripture, now they 
deny its existence. They say, we care not for general assertions, for 
abstract maxims of benevolence, for the famous golden rule, let us 
descend to particulars, and learn vvhat specific practices are tolerated 
or forbidden by Christianity. Your leading divines assure us that 
the morality of the Bible allows of slaveholding,, allows one man to 
hold another as a chattel, a piece of animated property, an intelligent 
machine, to take that man's earnings, and divest him of all rights 
and prerogatives. In other words, the morality of the Bible, allows 
of robbery in its highest form, by which a man is robbed of his own 
soul and body, and condemned by mere force, without a shadow of 
nght, to renounce liberty and to exist for another's convenience and 
gain. Such an unjust and immoral practice, is defended by reference 
to the Bible ; those guilty of it are admitted to the church and welcom- 
ed to fraternal communion by professing Christians; Commentators 
and Doctors of Divinity and INlissiouary Boards declare that slave- 
holding is not inconsistent with a fair character and true regeneration 
of heart. What is the inevitable result ? Men of discernment con 
elude that such a religion never came from God, teaching as it does a 
doctrine subversive of human rights, inimical to liberty, hostile to re- 
publican principles, at war with all true morality, corrupt and cor- 
rupting in its tendency and actual effect. The truth is, that men have 
a moral sense, — they are created with some perception of right and 
wrong, with a conscience whose decisions they are bound to follow* 
That moral sense condemns slaveholding. 'Even the slaveholder 
knows it is wrong. HenceJohn Randolph worded his will in this 
manner; "In the name of God, amen. I John Randolph, of Roan- 
oke, in the county of Charlotte, do ordain this writing, written with 
my own hand, this fourth day of May, one thousand eight hundred 
and nineteen, to be my last will and testament, hereby revoking 
all others whatsoever. I give to my slaves, their freedom, to which 
my conscience tells me tliey are justly entitled.'^ Hence he said in 
his scathing rebuke of Edward Everett in 1820; " Sir, I neither envy 
the head nor, the heart of that man from the North, who rises hereto 
defend slavery upon principle." Said the skeptic and slaveholder 
Thos. Jefferson, writing to Dr. Price of London, in 1785, with regard 
to an antislavery pamphlet which the latter had published; "From 
the mouth to the head of the Chesapeak, the bulk of the people will 
approve it in theory, and it will find a respectable minority ready to 
adopt it in practice— a minority which for weight of character, pre- 



9 

ponderates against the greater number who have not the courage to 
divest iheir laoiiUes ot a property, which, however, Axf/zs ///dr con- 
sciencrs uneasy.'* The truth is, (Conscience utters but one voice on 
thid subject and that is ofunmitigled reprobation. John Randolph felt 
thif«, when the fad of his slaveholding made him writhe in agony on 
his dying bed, and to an inquiry of his physician as to his difficulty, he 
took a card and wrote thereon, the one word, Remorse. Rely upon it, 
tne religion which sanctions slaveholding must first gain a victory over 
itie conscience before it can be rect-ived as coming from God. 

3. To leach that the Bible sanctions slaveholding, is to destroy the 
evidence in its favor that comes from experimental religion. Chris- 
tians have always prof«'ssed a willingness to abide the test that Christ 

bimcelf laid down, •' By their fruits ehall ye know tiiem." They 
have pointed the itjfidel to the iutluenco of Christianity iis seen in a 
comparison of the lives of llio-e wbo receivf and tbosjMvho rt'jtct the 
Bible. They have claimed that wherever the liible has intlnence, 
there you find individual and social happiness, and purity, and that all 
lliat U4 necessary to rlnngt' earth to a paradise, is. to have the doctrines 
of the Bible li%< 1 men. Taking this test, the infidel turns 
to the .Souther: ^ lind that "the gospel" has been preached 
lliere for two b.m ■!• i .• ^i-. thai numerous churcbes attest the belief 
of tJie inbiibitaiiih in the 15,1!' . and that ereryw here ihe Scriptures 
are acknowledged to be the Word of Ciod and the rule of life. He 
also beholds in operation a ■yi«tein of oppression, the most vile and 
cruel that existn un earth ; thre« millions of the inhabitants are 
slaves ; aiJ siirh, nre snuiiily <lo!hed. poorly fed, are kepj ii: abject 
ignoruiice and healbi iiiMii ntxJ ^Toun out a weary life in unremitting 
and unpaid loi! V-i. r- suit of tiiis system, a curse seems lo rest 
upon every d< j ; human action, uprm iigriniUuie, upon 
comnierrc. uiH. n, upui: morals. The fountain of this ac- 
cumulated \\ retciiedtieon, bo ascertains to be the chattel principle, or 
iJie rerogiiiiion of ihf doririn»« ihul one man may be the property of 
another. This docti. • ' ' '•'! in its influenie on hu- 
man Wflfure. than t! 1 ' >. lie learns is jiroved to 
bo true, out of Ibe 1>.;.. } fact, ministers and peo- 
ple are engageil in its practical illustration, living on unremuiierated 
labor and dooming their fellow men to lifelong misery. The jiro- 
priety of this is advoraled on «»cri|)lnral grounds by the minister in 
the pulpit, by the legislator in the hall of legislation, by the editor in 
his piiper. and by tin- judge upon the bench. He turns to the North, 
and the same inietprelation of tlio Bible in favor of oppression is 
ffiven by profesuors in tiieological seminaries, presidents of Colleges, 
Doctors of iJiviniiy, learne«l commentators, and the rank and file of 
churches, to say nothing of the endorsement of the doctrine by 
ecclesiastical bodies and missionary societies. \\'hal now will be 
the conclusion to which a skeptical mind will come 7 Mone other 
tlian this — that the propagation of such a religion is tJie subversion 
of liberty— tliut the fruits ol it are corrupt, and such as to establish 
iJie falseliood of its claiuis to inspiration. 

4. If the Bible sanctions nhiw;bolding, then it leaches either a false 
or a contradictory doctrine, with regard to the accountability of a 
large portion of the liunian race- There is no doctrine more forcibly 
proclaimed by conscience than that of human accountability. We 
believe that (Jod holds us and all our fellowmen answerable for every 



10 

act. A large part of the infidel world, includiug their most powerful 
writers, acknowledge this truth. So fundamental a position is it, 
that we could not reasonably receive a book as inspired, which di- 
rectly or impliedly denies it. Now I affirm, that the fundamental 
principle of slavery is fatal to accountability as far as the slaves are 
concerned. On what is accountability based ? On the possession 
of power. Obligation rests upon ability. That which we have no 
power to do, we are not bound to do. Now the slave as a chattel, ig 
possessed of no rights such as inhere in a rational and accountable 
being — hence he is deprived of power, and by consequence, of ac- 
countabiiiiy. Rights are the capital which we possess — destroy that 
capital and how can the income be demanded ? A slave is a being 
despoiled of rights. According to slave law, according to the only 
true idea of a slave, as a piece of property, he has no right to make 
his wife and family happy and comfortable by the proceeds of his la- 
bor, no right to train up his children with the authority of a parent, 
no right to read the Bible, no right to rest on the Sabbuth, no right to 
attend regularly at the Sanctuary, and to worship God according to 
the dictates of his conscience, no right to inform his own mind, or 
that of his children, no right to devote a part or the whole of his 
time to doing good as he has opportunity. Grant these rights and 
slavery falls at once. Take away these rights and having reduced 
the man to a mere chattel, you can no more predicate responsibility 
of him, than of the horse or the ox who labors, on the same planta- 
tion. Rights are necessary to make a man, and I know of no being 
in this world who is accountable, but man. If then you approach the 
infidel with the Bible as sanctioning the claim of property in man, he 
will meet you on this wise : " I believe that God has made man ac- 
countable, that every human being as possessed of certain inaliena- 
ble rights is thereby constituted a subject of God's moral govern- 
ment, as no brute can be. Yon tell me that this book is from God, 
and yet assert that it maintains a doctrine, which, by subverting hu- 
man rights, degrades man to a brute, and throws him out of the pale 
of moral responsibility. My conscience will not allow me to credit 
the claims of such a book to inspiration. A God of benevolence 
and wisdom, never could fill this earth with intelligent beings, a part 
of whom should be authorized to strip the others of the prerogatives 
of manhood, and thus to convert them into brutes in human shape. — 
God would better have made the slaves brutes, than to have mocked 
them with the shape and tortured them with the feelings of manhood. 
I have not time to unfold this argument so as to give it its full weight 
— an entire discourse would be requisite for that; I must therefore 
leave it in its present incomplete state. 

Such is a hasty glance at the eftect which the prevalence of pro- 
slavery views in the church must have, from their antagonism to 
the alleged internal evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures'. — 
By this a priori reasoning we know what the facts must be, unless all 
the principles of calculation on which we usually rely, are wholly 
worthless. Let us now take up the posteriori course of argument, 
and learn what the facts of the case are. I proceed then to show — 

II. That the prevalence of proslavcry views in the church actually 
has made infidels. I shall illustrate the subject by a reference to 
facts, which will show its bearing on four different classes, viz., the 
slaves, the free colored people, the slaveholders, and those who are 



11 

not connected with thesysteiu, but hate its injustice and labor for its 
overUirow. 

1. The connection of slaveholding with religion causes skepti- 
cism among the slaves. We could hardly expect it to be otherwise. 
The slave conscious that he has been stripped of his rights, must 
either believe that his master is a hypocrite, or else that his master's 
religion puts forth a false claim to divine authority. On-; of these 
positions the ma^s of the ^slaves aUnosl invariably take. The whole 
mJiuence of the system as practised and defended by the professedly 
Christian church, is to cause a rejection of Christianity by the op- 
pressed. Let the following erideuce sulfice. Mr. L). De Vinne 
communicates this fact to the ' True Wesleyan." G. Dougherty, a 
member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and Representative in 
the Mississippi Legislature, reUted to him the following : 

" In the y«'rir 1S(I6, on tlie arrival of a slaver Irom tho coast of Africa, 
J. iJoujrhorty went to thf city of ^Savanah to buy slaves. After several 
huniln-d hail bet-n sold in lots and single, tv* suited the purchasers, a 
mi»!«lb- Ml."''! m^n wn- nut iijvin !h<- Miuid. vbo wi.«-hrU to nuike a 

■ uhichAvas that he 

: prayir and other 

Mil to thcni. Mr. 

L». V. h.» Ji.id i.iu.y cii. I :ai»l to he /ealou.*! to 

Jiroinotr ilic iMu-M-, . • for him, fi-flini^ confi- 

lent within hiiii-<'' '' . ...ltI him to the true faith. 

Tukin^; hiin to b <i\ a liut, arid a<siir<>d him that 

ho !.Ik.m!.| },- nl. '.vl, 

havr . 
Th. • 
Irani' 
forii!' 
wa> 
Chr.>:... 
nouiuT till" pro; 

if th'> D.r KlMUl '■ 



Ul li.lilc. 

hition*^, Ml 

iJiat (f«x! \\ .. .' 

Thim WM th« religion of Je«u» put to whamc before the claims of 
the falsr prophet, and ifio poor slave prrfrrr***! to tru.«t his soul to 
Moliammrd rather than to Christ, the tendrr mercies of whose re- 
ligion Im> had been l«'d to f»'p| were cruelty. Corroborative evidence 
or tho same kind is fiirnifhrd by Kov.J. D. I'axton. hinipelf once a 
•Uveholder. His language is : "It is oHen said, and not without 
reason, thai ihrre is a jjrow ing indi««po>.ilion among hhivps to worship 
with their miuilors and aH*'nd on lh«- pr«*.-\(biiig of whit«s Now that 
this prejiidire in slaves, against worshipping with the whitrs, may l)e 
traced mainly to the sydicm of slavrry is to me most certain. The 
relation between the master and- slaTc is not one of mutual agree- 
ment, in which there is a quid pro tpio. a stipulated service for a stip- 
ulated reward ; but om? of force on the part of the master and hard 
necessity on tlip part of tlie gjave. Suppose thti ina-trr a professor 
of religion and prats in his fiimily. Art«*r laboring during the day, 
the slave conies home and throws liimselfdowu to rest. He was 



l.d 




iii»n. should 
.1 

;;:i-!i ;, who 




I \\r i\u 


1 not j.rt'fiT 




;ild not 


opfiity re- 


llrl^l 


T The 


•lavf jisked 


1 fo 


hold nru 


•ihiT in sla- 

'■. was in 

of the 

M a land 

rl .'MiK-d ab- 

d, declaring 



12 

called out, it maybe, pretty early— he has labored under the eye of a 
watchful masteror overseer, has been found fault with as to his man- 
ner of doing his work, or his not doing it faster, has been scolded 
and threatened, and perhaps whipped, has made his meal, it may be, 
in the field, and on provisions much inferior to what he knows big 
master and family enjoy. His labors for the day are however closed. 
Presently he hears the horn blow or the bell ring for prayers. What 
now are the thoughts which would most likely pass through the mind 
of a slave of no decided religious feelings ? 'Ah ! the white folks are 
going to be religious now ; master is going to pray. He takes his 
ease all day, and makes us poor negroes do his work. He is always 
finding fault and scolding and whipping us. I don't think his pray- 
ers will do much good — I won't go to prayers.' Their aversion to 
attend family prayers is so common as to be the subject of frequent 
remark. I think nine times out of ten, few attend even in professors 
houses, except the house servants, and not unfrequeiitly they slip out 
of the house when the family assembles for prayer." Such is the 
testimony of one who had the best opportunity for learning the truth. 
A very striking proof of the skeptical feelings which pro-slavery 
preachers produce among slaves, is related by Rev, C C. Jones, in 
his Tenth Annual Report of the Association for the religious instruc- 
tion of the negroes in Liberty County, Georgia. His words are : — 
"I was preaching to a large congregation (of negroes,) on the Epis- 
tle to Philemon ; and when I insisted upon fidelity and obedience as 
christian virtues in servants, and upon the authority of Paul, con- 
demned the practice of running away, one half of my audience de- 
liberately rose up and walked off with themselves, and those that re- 
mained looked anything but satisfied, either with the preacher or his 
doctrine. xAfter dismission, there was no small stir among them : 
somesolemnly declared there was no such epistle in the Bible; oth- 
ers that it was not the gospel ; others that I preached to please mas- 
ters; others that they did not care if they never heard me preach 
again." How plain it is that there are some heresies which nature 
itself will refute and disprove even in the breasts of the most de- 
graded, and that the slavesknew that God never could have sanction- 
ed a system of oppression like American Slavery, that an epistle 
which did sinction such sin never was written by Paul, and could 
not be a part of the Gospel. Fugitive slaves tell us that their breth- 
ren in bonds look with suspicion upon the Bible. Lewis Clark, a 
fugitive from Kentucky, well known in many free States where he 
has labored, said in answer to thequestien. What do the slaves know 
about the Bible ? "They generally believe there is somewhere a 
real Bible, that came from God ; but they frequently say, the Bible 
HOW used is master's Bible, most that they hear from it being, * Ser- 
vants obey your masters." ' Henry Bibb, a fugitive slave from the 
same State, declared in my hearing, that he knew hundreds of 
slaves who reject the Bible because it sanctions slaveholding — 
Let me now direct your attention, 

2. To the effect of pro-slavery views in the church upon the free 
colored people. I have not been able to make the inquiries neces- 
sary to reach the facts in respect to this portion of the community, 
and my remarks will therefore be brief. I have, however, one wit- 
ness, whose competence none who know him will deny, and whose 
testimony is directly to the point. I refer to the Rev. Theodore S. 



13 

\Vriglit, ihe colored Presbyterian minister in New York City. — 
Speaking of the wicked and cruel prejudice which opeiates against 
the colored people, and which is a reuiuunl of slavery, and destined 
to peri-ih with it, he remarked : " The colored man is excluded trom 
the house of (iod. Kven at the communion table he can only par- 
take of tiie crumb;* otTered to him after the others have been served. 
This prejudice drives the colored man from religion. I have often 
heard my brethren say, they would have nothing to do with such a 
religion. 71iey are driven away and go to infidelity ; for even infi- 
dels nt Tammany Hall make no distinction on account of color." — 
Rev. Mr. I'enningtou, the colored Congregational minister of Hart- 
ford, hai also made general remarks to me of the same nature, stating 
that it is his firm belief that many colored people are driven into in- 
fidelity by liie pro-«Iavery views of the professedly Christian church. 
I auk you now, 

3. To consider sirailir fact* connected with residenL* at the South , 
particularly nlaveliolders. It is true th.it eren men reared in the 
midst «)f slavery, are di-«gusled wjlh tJje defence of slaveholding drawn 
fiom liie IJible. A few year* Bince, Lewin Tappan. Ks<j , was re- 
turning from England and imrodnrrd ihu subject of slavery as a top- 
ic of convers;iti()n umnn- j r,. There wiLs present a 
profeii!«or of rehgion ^'hn • . -lavery from the Scrip- 
luies, and fiuently (ju.'ted I. . ., ..., , .: Ins position. After tlie 
convernJiti.ni t-ndecl, a Cuban f»lavehol»ler who WiLs present came to 
Lewis Tuppan <ind«aid, with regard to the defender of oppression : 
"I have no confidence in that man'i religion I would not trust him 
— he ifl not hontst, and I will not speak anotlier word with him the 
rent of the voyage." Hear now the language of Cassius .M. Clay, 
until recently a vlaveholder. 

" But v,\\ou nn«l hov*' ."Imll we cltxA* tliat man who knocks from un- 
der our toM.TJivj 'tiid w.' '.rv r»'«M !hi-l!i-i ^•nfl<«ldmi,"«f li"!"'. '"'d makes 
Gixl ■ ' ■ 'most un- 

ju'i . slavery 

iViMi ■• iiiake.s 

iw :, - iir idea 

oft!. .<1 wrong 

— \\, ., ...;... , ...,.!■ to mur- 
der our nioiher tor a meal ol viciuais— or scatu-r ilie desecrated 
reinams <.f u ,|..;,.| «|.t,T. or fnUi»T, or wit"»«. to maimrc our cucum- 
ber vines ! W. ' • ■ ' than rea."<jnin^, and 
coiiscMenee luc: • iiio-t sinn-iely be- 
lieve, aiid we > I . ii iill the b<x»k.s' and 
Cii\H'f< which have bccu w i.iuju u> piuvi .-Liviiy a divine iiL-^titution, 
as never convmced a sinjjie miui or woimui lluit it was rig/«/ — no, not 
oner 

No! Slaveholders know that they are doing wrong ; it would be 
an in-<ult to their intellect and moral sense to believe the contrary. 
They inwaidiv despise those who would defend oppression from the 
Bible, or else they learn to desjuse the Bible ilself. Kvidenceof this 
is found in a letter to t!ie Ilmancipator. by a correspondent traveling 
at the South, dated May, 164G, Irom which the following is an ex- 
tract : 



14 

" Soon after we were under weigh, I fell into conversation with an 
infidel, a native of North Carolina, and a resident of Alabama. The 
iirst argument he brought against the Scriptures was the assertion that 
they sanctioned slavery ; and to prove it, quoted Gov. Hammond, and 
prominent Doctors of Divinity, both North and South. I replied that I 
should be compelled to join him in rejecting the Bible, it I beheved 
that American slavery was sanctioned "by it, — but I did not. This 
loosened his- foundation for argument with me against the Scriptures, 
very essentially. I frequently meet with men of this character — whose 
humanity has led them to look with contempt upon a religion, which, 
according to its professed ministers sanctions 'the sum of all villanies.' 
The trutli is, the South is full of those who openly declare their con- 
tempt of the Bible, and the number will continue to increase so long 
as it is made to countenance every popular sin." 

Ills but recently that my attention has been occupied specifically 
with this part of the anti-slavery subject, but I doubt not that, had I 
lime to examine it thoroughly, the proof would be overwhelming, that 
even among slaveholders, multitudes have learned to look with con- 
tempt on ministers, churches and the scriptures, from the simple fact 
that Christianity has been thrown as a shield bofore slavery, while its 
professed expounders, in the language of the poet, 

'Torture the pages of the hallowed Bible, 
To sanction crime and robbery and^blood. 
And in oppressions hateful service, libel 
Both man and God.' 

4. Our investigation will not be even generally complete, unless 
we notice the effect produced upon many of the opponents of sla- 
very, by the past action of the church. The truth is precisely this, 
unpalatable as it may be to the tnass of the churches. There are 
many ardent advocates of anti-slavery principles, who from 
the bottom of their hearts loathe slaveholding, who are moral in their 
lives, men of truth, of chastity, of honesty, of moral daring, from 
whose lips no oath, no impure word proceeds, but who nevertheless 
are thoroughly infidel in their principles, I could name some of the 
more prominent, if necessary. I have iieard them denounce the Bi- 
ble and have more often read their words of condemnation. Their 
number is increasing, and their principles are successfully instilled 
into minds whose ardor outweighs their judgment. Every year thaj 
passes, witnesses the conversion of many from Christianity to infi- 
delity. 

I am well aware that pro-slavery ministers have derived an argu- 
ment from these very facts, against the anti-slavery cause- They 
have denounced it as tending to infidelity, and made the opinions of 
some attached to the Garrisonian party a text from which to warn 
their people against laboring for the slave. lamas keenly alive to 
the evil influence of the anti-church abolitionists, as firmly opposed to 
their extravagance of opinion and action, as willing publicly and pri- 
vately to deprecate their course, a? are those to whom I have referred. 
But nevertheless I have a word of truth in the name of crushed hu- 
manity and the living God, to speak to these ministerial friends of op- 
pression. 



15 

Rail on, scoff on, at the infidelity of Garrisonism, if you please, but 
know two things — that you scoff at the works of your own hands, and 
that ihn longer you maintain your position, the larger will be the num- 
ber of such infideld who will attack the church. Nay I start not, at 
Xii'm annoiincenieiit as though it were something strange. I reatfirui 
it, that the infidelity of certain ahulilionists. whose names have be- 
come a byword with you, is occasioned by your conduct. You often 
call them the iroublers of Israel.' I will answer in their beijalf, out 
of that blesjied book which your inhumanity has bronght into con- 
tempt : 'And it came to pa>?-*, when Ahab saw Elijah, that .\hab said 
unto him. art thou he thai truuUeth hratl * .And he answered. I have 
not troubled Israel; but thou and thy fither's house, in that ye have 
fontakcn the commandments of the Lord, and lliuu hat>t followed Baa- 
lim.' There was a lime when tlicse men belicvtd in the relio;ion of 
JcHiis Christ, when tlK-y reverenced the Sabbath, attended upon the 
woriihip of (iod in tho sanctuary, and re!<pect«d tiie amba<o!adort of 
the Saviour What has occa.'tioned the sad chanjje, over which I, as 
well as yourselves, mourn 7 Hear me, ye mim«ttei» and church mem- 
bers who have been faUc to human. ty and to (iod in (iie cause of the 

slave. These n)en were <ic tiKiMe of the wr ■ '' ■ ' ■ ')n their 

hro/her man — they »:iw tho ••coiirpe which li - naked 

body, and buried ithflf m his (piivi-rin^ tlesli . < ;hc tear 

ran down his checks : liiey hiiiencd to his groatm ; nw crim ft»r help 
thrilled throu;;h tiieirh^nrl?» : tb»«y were mo»ed with indignation as tiiej 
were wiuifs«i'« of ih< .of bod) and nuul to which he was 

rediicrd, and were r ' on ax he crouched b«fure tiiem, 

spoiled of lii^ ri;:hl«. — » .m- i...».f. drhunnt- ' ' . i •.•.,. j Burning 
witii Biuu'ty to abolish a (iy»tem winch oiiir > •. ol tlinr t«|- 

lowmcn, they came to you, eiprcting tliat ' > r« and lullow- 

ers of the cumptiMionate Saviour would " rcuinnlifr thoav m bonds 
as boand with them " What wan the reception with which they met 7 
You dt-noiinced them an funaln-s, you refiMod tt» open your lioiiM?k- of 
womhip that the voire of the -tlave nnght be heard. >ou defended the 
slaveholder and declared that the Bit>le tMinrtioncd the claim of prop- 
erty in man, you admitted ilaveholditij: preachers and prof»'j.M»rs to 
your pulpit-* audio your cnmmuniun tables, and wi-re in fact so busy 
\i\ "tithiu;^' mint, niuse and cummin," in re;,Milatuig church govern- 
ment and correcting heretics, that you "oiuilt<-d the wci;jhtirr mutters 
of tJie law. jiid;;mcnt. mercy and faith" With yon joined the theo- 
logical ■•rtiiinarics, \\\v rrh^^ioijH press, the rccles»a>.tirnl biidien of t}»e 
land, all an^iTting that the rights of the master were guarantied by the 
Word of (iod. On*' eitreme begets it* ojijiotite. They look you 
at your w«»rd — ibey btlu-ved that the Bible did sanction slavery, and as 
Uieir consciences condemned il, they followed out the pnih you pre- 
set ibed, and cost away the Bildc. I do not defend tlieir ctuirse — 
bull charge itn ginlt in a great meannrt' upon you. What in the 
result? Your intlitreriMK e to humanity, vour perversion of hcrip- 
ture, drove them to 'coine-onti.sm' and infidelity, and now, forsooth, 
YOU strengthen yourselv«-M in opposition t» anti-slavery pnnciples, 
by reference to their irregnlarilieH ' This reacU upon llieni, and they 
again upon you, and thii!< the breach widfui, the evil increases, the 
cause of emancipation siilTeis, and the Bible is dishonored. 



16 



A few words in conclusion and I have done. The present crisis is 
one of intense interest to the true follower of Christ. A new race of 
infidels has arisen, not profane, unchaste, immoral as were their pred- 
ecessors, and as many of their cotemporaries are, but evincing a re- 
gard for God, for truth, for humanity, for morals, and whose com 
plaint is that the church are arrayed against God, against truth, against 
humanity, against sound morals. It is an evil hour when infidelity 
can marshal its forces with Humanity for its watchword, with the 
conscience of the world on its side, while Christianity in the hands of 
those vvho betray its interests, leads forth its host to do battle for op- 
pression. In such a conflict, infidelity must triumph — the Bible must 
fall. Then will be true of the church what was anciently said of Je- 
rusalem,.: "All that pass by, clap their hands at thee ; they hiss and 
wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying. Is this the city 
that men call the perfection of beauty. The joy of the whole 
earth?" 

This may be strong language, but it describes the issue and the 
result to which the church is being driven by many of its religious 
teachers, especially at the South, vvho are fast bringing both them- 
selves and Christianity into contempt, and with a scathing rebuke of 
whom by the gifted VVhittier, I conclude. 

" Paid hypocrites, who turn 
Judgment aside, and rob the Holy Book 
Of those high words of truth which search and burn 

In warning and rebuke. 

Feed fat, ye locusts, feed ! 
And in your tasselled pulpits thank the Lord 
That, from the toiling bondman's utter need, 
Ye pile your own full board. 

How long, O Lord ! how long 
Shall such a priesthood barter truth away. 
And in Thy name, for robbery and wrong 
At thine own altars pray. 

AVoe to the Priesthood ! woe 
To those whose hire is with the price of blood — 
Perverting, darkening, changing as they go, 

Thesearchmg truths of God! 

Their glory and their might 
Shall perish ; and their very names shall be 
Vile before all the people, in the light 
Of a World's Liberty.'' 



54 W 






•«„ .*- .'^'^^.. V.** .♦. 









. ./V^i.X co\ci^,x ./\.^i>. 



-ov*^ : 



'- "^o V* 







/ J-X '- 








0^ t-^^!/,'^^ 



>,_ •'"^* .^ 



C^ ♦ 



o_ # 




^0v^ 



.^ ^"-^^^ V 



q*. *.; 














'^bv^ 






M'^ . 



." s>°-n*.. V 







<^*. '♦^•' .*•«•' "q,. '^^tT'* .0' 








''•*• .v'^ <> *^TvT* ,0^ ^^ '0.7* ,^ ^. 



• • • A.^ 



**. 






J>^-H. '• 






^: ,^^ 



,G^ 



V 



4i, 



>..e^ 



V- -ov* 






X 




A 



.0^ \ ^ 






> ,0 » « • •* > 



4*'~*** 



<.^ 






^.0^'' 









% 






•^Ao< 



«;■ 



**/ 







^ :i 



